Status Games - Abel and Cain

 Last Friday, 2 October, I was at a roundtable on social cohesion with the Australian education minister, Jason Clare, where I noticed that several people standing near me had little gold pins with a blue dot in the middle, similar to the one I was wearing. I also noticed that one man’s pin didn’t have a blue dot because he outranked the rest of us. If I was dishonest, I would make a joke about all the pins; in fact, I was tempted to do so on the day. However, I will admit to feeling some pride that the work I have done and continue to do has been recognised by my being awarded the Member of Australia honour. I also admit to feeling honoured to be in the company of others whose efforts were recognised. My only regret is that there are some unsung heroes whose much-deserved recognition is lacking. It got me thinking about the role that status plays in our lives.

In his book The Status Game (1), Will Storr argues – and I partially agree with him - that human behaviour is driven by an on-going game to gain social rank and status. Historically, having high status meant better access to better food, mates and safety. Storr describes three types of status games:

a) dominance games: forcing or intimidating others to submit, using fear and power.
b) virtue games: proving moral superiority, duty or selflessness within a group.
c) success/competence games: achieving prestige through skills, knowledge or achievements.

The quest for status – especially but not limited to dominance games - is often measured in terms of one’s rank in comparison to others, and it can be very destructive. The Talmud states that envy, lust and the pursuit of honour cause people to be removed from the world (2). Status anxiety can cause illness. Often, the stress involved in status-related conflict – where people are fighting to be seen as the “good one” and the victim and to position the other as the villain – can have serious health impacts.

It is really important to mitigate the harm of one person gaining status at the expense of others. At this roundtable, participants were asked to stand near a poster with the name of a value that they would be prepared to sacrifice. The values were based on the Schwartz Theory of Basic Values (3). The values we used were Achievement, Benevolence & Loyalty (to the people close to you), Change, Conformity, Hedonism, Humility, Self-Direction/ Self-Expression, Peace, Power, Security, Tradition, Universalism and Dignity for all. Some participants stood at Tradition as something they would trade in favour of Change, others at Conformity that they saw as destructive. I stood at Power, because I am concerned that the exercise of power by one person is often at the cost of the dignity of another.

In our work in Together for Humanity, we recently invited young people to consider the trade-offs between values to make better choices. One group of girls reflected that their value of power made them act like “control freaks” at the expense of their values of respect for others and cooperation. I told participants at the roundtable that preaching respect is not enough to defeat hatred and discrimination. Perhaps, thinking more deeply about values trade-offs can lead to better results.

Fortunately, in cases where a win-win is possible, there is no need for trade-offs. One insight about this is the Jewish teaching, “Who is respected? Those who respect all people.” (4) Starr points out that there are multiple ways to play the “status game”, in some of these approaches, we can spread high status around.

One way of understanding the story of Cain and Abel is as a catastrophic status game. The siblings’ rivalry began with arguments about which of their occupations – farming or being a shepherd – was more worthy (5). The offerings the two brothers brought to God (6) were an attempt to get God to referee their status game (7). The enduring shame (8) and anger that Cain felt in seeing his brother recognised by God while he and his offering were rejected led him to murder his brother. This is therefore a cautionary tale about the harmful aspects of the status game and an invitation to play it differently.

Going back to the roundtable I mentioned at the start of this blog, among the participants were an Aboriginal elder, a female academic who is both Muslim and a migrant, a passionate feminist, representatives of the Ethics Centre, people of Jewish heritage and someone working on Anzac Day remembrance. It was wonderful to see the dignity of all participants and the communities they represent affirmed on this occasion. We might not all have had pins in our lapels,
but the body language of all participants made it clear that the status of all was recognised.  

1)      Storr, W. (2021). The Status Game: On human life and how to play it. William Collins.

2)      Pirkey Avot – Ethics of the Fathers, 4:21

3)      Schwartz, S. H. (2012). An overview of the Schwartz theory of basic values. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 2.1

4)      Pirkey Avot – Ethics of the Fathers, 4:1

5)      Abarbanel’s commentary on Genesis 4:1-8, Chorev Edition, p. 221

6)      Genesis 4:3

7)      Abarbanel, p. 222

Sa’adiya Gaon